Skip to main content

About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
's important to remember george w. bush and karl rove have a brilliant strategy of outreach to the hispanic voters and a less successful. george bush won at least 40% of the vote. it's more like 40. stila does a remarkable accomplishment, and now he's pulling at best in the mid-20s with the hispanic vote and his own campaign said the need to reach 38% nationally to be competitive in the state where the latino vote will be critical, so the republican party lurched to the right in recent years instead of george w. bush, karl rove, john mccain. let's reach out to the hispanics and make reform something. it's become a party that mitt romney says there is a model he's promised a veto. the gerry before the radical policy prescription called deportation, the idea of making life so miserable here that immigrants are literally purged from the country so it's hurt badly but hispanics. the strategy, that strategy means as you point out in your excellent paper, really the southwest is out of reach in large part because of this. they've pulled off the mexico. they have a shot in colorado and nevada but
will also i think learn from the mistakes of, i think george bush the second was much a similar way and then, you know, he wanted to read a book, go to bed. he didn't want to fool around with congress. and it didn't work very well early on. toward the end he got very engaged, and once again, it was sort of interesting, you may see this with president obama. towards the and, president bush really felt somewhat ostracized from his party. he felt they were letting him down in the sense that really the right wing, he could never do enough for them, and he just come he was really frustrated. and for some reason i was a blue dog democrat, and i think he felt that i was being shunned by the liberals. i really wasn't doing but he just wanted to talk about how do you deal with, you know, the other part of the party not liking what you are doing? and i think you're going to see, as bill pointed out, the president will step forward and say yes, we have to do some type of reform. and he is going to get it just like president bush got it. but i think he will have learned people reach out just as presiden
effectively. i think that's a better model. compare a huntsman to george w. bush. >> and marco rubio. i can imagine jeb bush is being the intellectual leader, but not running himself, maybe trying to see a rubio was not message of anti-and i can't get but further in this direction. i can sort of imagine that scenario. >> far be it for me to predict what republicans are going to do. i thought they're going to pass immigration reform in 2000, but i think jeb bush is going, he's positioning himself. he went to tampa and said we are acting stupid on immigration. is going to write a book and immigration reform. i think he's positioning himself to be the guy who is very conservative, catholic, he's got a great education track record but i think is going to be well-positioned to be, if we're going to modernize someone we feel safer, he could be the guy. >> one last word on the millennials since we did have that question. according to the data i missing, it doesn't look like obama shares the millennial vote, its operational shores -- is creeping up. he did win it 66-32 in 2008. he's not there yet,
- sector jobs created with this president is more than were created under george bush. you have a president who basically inherited one of the worst economies that this country has ever seen. of course, what will you do with a falling object? that object will fall and you have to pick up and the rise back up will be a little bit slower. what you have seen is that coming in the 30 months, 4.6 million new jobs, he has already created more jobs centers w. bush. this is a president who understands how to get the economy going and this election should be, between these two candidates, who actually has a plan about the future? given his record, i have more confidence that president obama can get that done than governor romney appeared >> -- then governor romney. >> right now, you're trying to get a sales tax increase to pay for pre-k. can you defend, sitting next to someone who does not like texas famously, the decision to brought to market with a tax increase even for something you so strongly believe in? many mayors are with you, but there are a lot of elected officials and san antonio who are
, and the same breath criticizes george w. bush for running wars on the credit card, he will say those like almost 1 cents after another without any since he is contradicting himself. there is polling there that says that's an effective line. it moves voters eric so it doesn't matter what the actual facts are. so that's, that's when -- >> i think fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and ideas and backgrounds. and any since he is trying to redefine what a fact is. pretty saying there are no objective facts, that it's just someone else's opinion about what we are saying. so, you know, it's kind of like redefining apology. they are redefining what are facts. >> also, let me add spent i don't want to be unfair to romney. my own view is that the attitude on the part of the obama campaign and the romney campaign is pretty much equivalent. the surprising things that somebody from either campaign said it out loud, and so shocked news editors who had been paying all that much attention previously. i mean, are there differences? to any of you see differences in attitudes of the
. donald marron is the director of the tax policy center and member of george bush's advisor and acting director of cbo and finally, digamma rogers blogs as an economist and was the chief economist of the house budget committee for the democratic staff of the house ways and means committee. the format today will be relatively straightforward. each of the panelists will speak for five minutes. i will ask some questions and we will get a discussion going up here and then turn to the audience to give you all a chance to ask questions. we have people watching on c-span and on the web. if you are not in the room and have questions, please send them to publicaffairs@urban.org and the questions will come to me. let's start. >> thanks everybody for being here and for braving the rain to talk about the fiscal cliff and we will try not to ruin your lunch. as howard mengin we put out a report yesterday about the tax components of the fiscal clef walking through the various details about what the potential effect would be on american households. today in the quick remarks i want to meet five basic
of the this continuity between obama and george w. bush for that matter. so, any president in my view only changes things 10 degrees one way, 10 degrees the other. there will be some issues. obviously, you know, there's no question that romney takes a different view on how to deal with russia and you probably see a different policy towards russia. on iran is a harder call and one thing we have not spoken about, and i think maybe you were going to get to it eventually -- >> we are only 25 minutes in. >> okay. since i considered it to be not a and unreasonable possibility regardless of who was in the white house that the united states might end up with the desire because it has no choice engaging in the military action in iran, what is that going to do to all of the consensus about spending about whether the american people are registered in foreign policy and even the issues like the defense budget, and that's why it's issues like that and the ones the we don't even know about that make me weary of all of these street line projections that we are making in the future based on what things look like right n
by the presidential reelected george w. bush, three left-wing billionaires, george soros, peter lewis raise $200 million for a series of organizations together and try to defeat president bush. so this type of structure had been found for a long period of time. another thing gone on even longer with labor union participation, specifically democrats. in election after election, it is the biggest spending of the labor unions. and when karl rove and ed gillespie started looking at the 2010 elections, they realized that while big labor, which is $400 billion to a public president upon the 2008, there was no corollary that existed on the right to spend large amounts of money for house and senate. so karl rove smartly started american crossroads. it was interesting. i was working across her as an and president obama actually attacked carr wrote in february seeking a legal money from china, which was funny. as soon as he said that comeau we saw an uptick in america grassroots funding. the reason for that was president obama had identified us and we ended up shattering her fund raising goals by the 2010
were in charge during the george w. bush administration, there were at least a dozen attacks on u.s. embassies and consulates. you know, governor romney likes to use the term peace through strength which he borrows from ronald reagan. during the reagan administration, our embassy and marine barracks were bombs in beirut. and the last time these folks were in charge -- and believe me, it would be the same folks running the foreign policy establishment if you elected mitt romney -- these folks led us into the most disastrous foreign policy decision in a generation which was the invasion of iraq. it empowered iran, it created a trillion dollars of debt charged on the national credit card, it killed more than 4,000 americans, it wounded more than 30,000, it left hundreds of thousands of iraqis dead or displaced. and yet these folks want us to hand the keys of foreign policy back to them? it's, it's -- i mean, the nerve of the individuals who drug us into the worst foreign policy disaster in the middle east in a generation, to say that they somehow understand this region better is, it'
adviser to president george w. bush and is now in private practice in washington. ken, please. spec the panel starts off with a reference to playboy magazine, but i will see if i can catch my breath and go forward. thanks very much, pete. good to be here. i've been asked to talk about three cases. 1i guess you could call a national security case and then number to a more regular case. let me start with the national security case and that is called blabber versus amnesty international. it's actually standing case but it's a standing case relating to a challenge to what's called the fisa amendment act passed in 2008, and was an amendment through a very substantial amount of the foreign intelligence surveillance act passed in 1978, and to understand the standing issue of the stakes at play you have to understand the merits a little bit so let me get into them. >> for those watching on c-span, what is standing? >> the question of whether a party actually has the right to appear in court and to challenge come in this case to challenge the statute. .. just to get to the merits for a minut
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10